Aminophylline suppresses stress-induced visceral...

来自 : 发布时间：2024-05-17

Aminophylline suppresses stress-induced visceral hypersensitivity and defecation in irritable bowel syndrome AbstractPharmacological therapy for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) has not been established. In order to find candidate drugs for IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), we screened a compound library of drugs clinically used for their ability to prevent stress-induced defecation and visceral hypersensitivity in rats. We selected the bronchodilator aminophylline from this library. Using a specific inhibitor for each subtype of adenosine receptors (ARs) and phosphodiesterases (PDEs), we found that both A2BARs and PDE4 are probably mediated the inhibitory effect of aminophylline on wrap restraint stress (WRS)-induced defecation. Aminophylline suppressed maternal separation- and acetic acid administration-induced visceral hypersensitivity to colorectal distension (CRD), which was mediated by both A2AARs and A2BARs. We propose that aminophylline is a candidate drug for IBS-D because of its efficacy in both of stress-induced defecation and visceral hypersensitivity, as we observed here, and because it is clinically safe. IntroductionIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is characterized by chronic, recurrent abdominal pain and altered bowel habits (diarrhea or constipation) and is defined by symptom criteria and the absence of detectable organic disease1. The prevalence of IBS in the general population is remarkably high (approximately 11% of the world鈥檚 population), with the young displaying greater susceptibility1. Thus, although IBS is not life-threatening, it creates a large burden on global healthcare and causes a serious reduction in the quality of life2. However, a therapeutic protocol for the disease, including pharmacological therapy, has not been established. Four subtypes of IBS are recognized, depending on the predominant stool pattern: IBS with constipation (IBS-C), IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), mixed IBS (IBS-M) and un-subtyped IBS3.Although the mechanism underlying the pathogenesis of IBS is not completely understood, several contributory factors have been proposed, including brain-gut axis dysregulation, enhanced visceral perception, altered intestinal microbiota, post-infectious changes in gastrointestinal function and enhanced immunologic reactivity4,5,6,7,8. Given that no single causal trigger for IBS has been identified, a combination of physiologic, genetic, environmental and psychological factors seems to be responsible for the visceral hypersensitivity and altered bowel conditions observed in IBS patients. In particular, mental stress in early childhood (such as the loss of a parent, neglect or abuse) is known to induce IBS-related phenotypes in both humans and animals9,10.Previously, the pharmacological treatment of IBS-D involved classic anti-diarrheal agents, such as loperamide and anticholinergic drugs. Some clinical studies have also suggested the effectiveness of antidepressants, although others reported contradictory results11. Recently, alosetron and ramosetron, two serotonin 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, were approved for patients with IBS-D12,13. This is based on the fact that inhibition of 5-HT3 receptors in the intestine is associated with the suppression of its motility and fluid secretion12. Rifaximin, an antibacterial drug, and eluxadoline, which has both 渭-opioid receptor agonist and 未-opioid receptor antagonist activity, were also recently approved for IBS-D14,15. However, thus far, the outcomes of pharmacological therapy for IBS-D are unsatisfactory16. Furthermore, as the 5-HT3 receptor also regulates other physiological functions, the use of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists is clinically restricted due to adverse effects, such as ischemic colitis17. In fact, the use of alosetron for IBS-D patients is permitted only when no alternative therapies are available17. Thus, new target proteins for IBS-D drugs, which enable long-term treatment without serious adverse effects, need to be identified16,18. One potential approach is to phenotypically screen compounds for their ability to reduce visceral hypersensitivity and stress-induced defecation in animals.The number of drugs reaching the marketplace each year is decreasing, mainly due to the fact that unexpected adverse effects of potential drugs are revealed in clinical trials. Thus, we have proposed a new strategy for drug discovery and development (drug re-positioning), which focuses on the use of existing medicines for alternative indications19. This strategy screens compounds with clinically beneficial pharmacological activity from a library of medicines that are already in clinical use to develop them for new indications. The advantage of this strategy is the decreased risk of unexpected adverse effects in humans because the safety aspects of these drugs have already been well characterized19. Furthermore, as the library size of approved medicines is relatively small, the phenotypic screening of compounds in animals is much easier to implement using a drug re-positioning strategy rather than a general drug discovery approach.Aminophylline (a mixture of theophylline and ethylenediamine in a 2:1 molecular ratio) is traditionally used as a bronchodilator20,21. Although the molecular mechanism governing its efficacy has not been fully defined, aminophylline (theophylline) has been reported to have both antagonizing activity for adenosine receptors (ARs) and inhibitory activity on phosphodiesterases (PDEs), both of which are believed to mediate the bronchodilatory activity of aminophylline22,23. Among the four major subtypes of AR (A1ARs, A2AARs, A2BARs and A3ARs), aminophylline (theophylline) is an antagonist of A1ARs, A2AARs and A2BARs but not of A3ARs24,25. A1ARs are mainly expressed in the brain and spinal cord, while A2AARs are expressed in the brain, spinal cord and peripheral tissues/cells (such as the spleen, thymus, leucocytes, small intestine, and colon)26,27. A2BARs are mainly expressed in the peripheral tissues, such as the large intestine28. Various pathophysiological roles of ARs have been reported, and agonists and antagonists for these receptors have attracted considerable attention as drugs for various diseases26. PDE inhibitors also have various pharmacological activities, and some have already been approved for clinical use29.Although previous studies have reported both positive and negative effects of adenosine on intestinal motility and nociception30,31,32, the role of each AR subtype in IBS-D remains unknown. In an animal model of acute somatic pain (hot-plate test), an antagonist of A2BARs but not of A1ARs or A2AARs showed an analgesic effect31, whereas in another animal model of somatic pain (formalin test), an A2AAR antagonist acted as an analgesic30,33. A2BAR-knockout mice have been reported to exhibit decreased stool frequency32 whereas an A2BAR antagonist enhanced colonic contraction in rats30. Further, activation of A1ARs in the spinal cord has an analgesic effect34. On the other hand, it has been reported that inhibition of PDE4 suppresses stress-induced defecation35. These results suggest that aminophylline (theophylline) may affect visceral hypersensitivity and stress-induced defecation in IBS-D patients and animal models either positively or negatively; however, no study to date has investigated these effects.In the present study, we used an in vivo phenotype screening and drug re-positioning strategy to search for candidate drugs for IBS-D. We screened a compound library consisting of clinically available drugs for the ability of the drugs to prevent stress-induced defecation and visceral pain, and identified aminophylline as a potential candidate. Analysis with a specific inhibitor for each subtype of PDE and AR suggested that PDE4 and A2BARs probably mediated the inhibitory effect of aminophylline on stress-induced defecation. On the other hand, A2AARs and A2BARs appear to be involved in its inhibitory effect on visceral hypersensitivity. On the basis of these results, we propose that aminophylline may be a candidate drug for IBS-D.ResultsEffect of aminophylline on wrap restraint stress (WRS)-induced fecal pellet outputWe selected 209 clinically used drugs, including bronchodilators, anticonvulsants, antibiotics, anti-hypertensives and anti-allergy drugs. We did not select anti-cancer drugs. The drugs were screened for their ability to suppress both the visceral pain response to repeated colorectal distension (CRD), and WRS-induced fecal pellet output in rats. Then, aminophylline was identified on the basis of its inhibition of both the visceromotor response (VMR) to CRD and WRS-induced fecal pellet output, as well as the available clinical data of its tolerability. We excluded positive drugs that are positive hits in the screening assay but had severe side effects, such as hypotension and hypoglycemia.We first examined the effect of oral administration of aminophylline on WRS-induced fecal pellet output. As shown in Fig. 1a, rats subjected to WRS displayed an increase in the number and wet weight of fecal pellets compared to that in unrestrained control rats, as described previously36. Oral pre-administration of aminophylline (18 or 60鈥塵g鈥塳g鈭?) significantly decreased both these indices in a dose-dependent manner (Fig. 1a). Oral pre-administration of ramosetron produced a similar effect (Fig. 1a).Figure 1: Effects of aminophylline on WRS- and novel stress-induced defecation in rats.Rats were subjected to maternal separation (MS) or non-maternal separation (NS) as described in the Materials and Methods (d). The rats received the indicated oral dose of aminophylline (Amino) (mg kg鈭?) (a,c鈥?b>e), ramosetron (Ram) (0.03鈥塵g鈥塳g鈭?) (a), theophylline (Theo) (mg kg鈭?) (b) or vehicle (Veh: saline) (a鈥?b>e). Two hours after the administration, rats were exposed to WRS for 1鈥塰 (a,b,e), or novel stress (transfer to a new cage) (d) or remained undisturbed for 24鈥塰 (c). The number (a,b,d) and wet weight (a,c) of the fecal pellets excreted in 1鈥塰 (a,b), 24鈥塰 (c) or until the indicated time period (d) were determined. After the WRS, the plasma level of corticosterone was measured by ELISA (e). The values are the mean鈥壜扁€塻.e.m. *P鈥?lt;鈥?.05; **P鈥?lt;鈥?.01 (Tukey test).Full size imageAminophylline is a complex of theophylline and ethylenediamine, and we found that oral pre-administration of theophylline also significantly decreased the fecal pellet output in rats subjected to WRS (Fig. 1b) at a dose equivalent to that of aminophylline (with respect to the molecular weight of theophylline). In contrast, as shown in Fig. 1c, aminophylline did not affect the fecal pellet output in rats that were not subjected to WRS, even at the higher dose of 180鈥塵g鈥塳g鈭?. These results suggest that aminophylline can suppress WRS-induced defecation without affecting normal defecation.It has been reported that neonatal rats subjected to maternal separation show higher sensitivity to a novel stress stimulus, which can be monitored by an increase in fecal pellet output10. We therefore examined the effect of aminophylline in this animal model. Indeed, as shown in Fig. 1d, maternal separation stimulated novel stress-induced fecal pellet output, a response that was suppressed by aminophylline.We then examined the effect of aminophylline on the serum level of corticosterone after exposure to WRS. As shown in Fig. 1e, rats subjected to WRS exhibited a significant increase in their serum corticosterone level, an effect that was not ameliorated by pre-administration of aminophylline. This suggests that aminophylline affects WRS-induced fecal pellet output independent of the serum level of corticosterone.The mechanism undelying aminophylline-dependent suppression of WRS-induced fecal pellet outputFor both the clinical application of aminophylline for IBS-D patients and the identification of the molecular mechanism underlying aminophylline-dependent suppression of WRS-induced fecal pellet output, it is important to examine whether this novel pharmacological effect of aminophylline (suppression of defecation) is achieved at a dose similar to that required for its original pharmacological activity (bronchodilation). We therefore compared the dose-response profiles of aminophylline in terms of its inhibitory effect on defecation and its bronchodilatory effect. Given that we had already established the assay system for bronchodilation in mice37, we used mice for this comparative analysis. Significant inhibition of methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction (an increase in airway resistance; Fig. 2a) and significant inhibition of restraint stress (RS)-induced fecal pellet output (Fig. 2b) were observed after oral administration of 180鈥塵g鈥塳g鈭? aminophylline. The dose of aminophylline required for its bronchodilation also inhibited stress-induced defecation.Figure 2: The relationship between the inhibitory effect of aminophylline on defecation and the bronchodilatory effect of aminophylline in mice.The indicated dose (mg kg鈭?) of aminophylline (Amino) (mg kg鈭?) or vehicle (Veh: saline) was orally administered to mice (a,b). After 1鈥塰, the mice were exposed to nebulized methacholine for 5 times, and the airway resistance was determined after each methacholine challenge (a). Two hours after aminophylline administration, the mice were subjected to RS for 1鈥塰 and the number of fecal pellets excreted during the RS period (1鈥塰) was determined (b). Control mice (Ctrl) were left to move freely in their cage. The values are the mean鈥壜扁€塻.e.m. *P鈥?lt;鈥?.05; **P鈥?lt;鈥?.01 (Tukey test).Full size imageTherefore, we focused on the inhibitory effect of aminophylline on both PDEs and ARs. We first examined the effect of a specific antagonist of each AR subtype on WRS-induced defecation. Pre-administration of MRS-1754 (a subtype-specific antagonist of A2BARs) significantly suppressed fecal pellet output in rats subjected to WRS in a dose-dependent manner (Fig. 3a). However, DPCPX and istradefylline (subtype-specific antagonists of A1ARs and A2AARs, respectively) had no significant effect hereon (Fig. 3a).Figure 3: Effects of AR antagonists and PDE inhibitors on WRS-induced defecation in rats.Rats were intraperitoneally administered the indicated dose of DCPCX (a selective A1AR antagonist) (a), istradefylline (Istra) (a selective A2AAR antagonist) (a), MRS-1754 (a selective A2BAR antagonist) (a), ibudilast (a subtype non-selective PDE inhibitor) (b), rolipram (a selective PDE4 inhibitor) (c), cilostazol (a selective PDE3 inhibitor) (c) or vehicle (Veh: 1% methylcellulose) (a鈥?b>c). Fifteen minutes after the administration, rats were subjected to WRS for 1鈥塰. Control rats (Ctrl) were left to move freely in their cage. The number of fecal pellets excreted during this period (1鈥塰) was counted. The values are the mean鈥壜扁€塻.e.m. *P鈥?lt;鈥?.05; **P鈥?lt;鈥?.01 (Tukey test).Full size imageWe also examined the effect of PDE inhibitors on WRS-induced defecation. As shown in Fig. 3b, ibudilast (a subtype non-specific inhibitor of PDEs) significantly suppressed fecal pellet output in rats subjected to WRS. We then used a specific inhibitor of each subtype of PDE. As shown in Fig. 3c, rolipram (a subtype-specific inhibitor of PDE4) but not cilostazol (a subtype-specific inhibitor of PDE3) suppressed the WRS-induced fecal pellet output in rats. These results suggest that the inhibitory effect of aminophylline on WRS-induced defecation is probably mediated by its inhibitory effect on both A2BARs and PDE4.Effect of aminophylline on visceral hypersensitivity to CRDTo assess the effect of aminophylline on visceral hypersensitivity, we used a rat model of maternal separation-induced visceral hypersensitivity to CRD, one of the animal models of IBS10. As shown in Fig. 4a, the VMR evoked by CRD (EMG amplitude) increased according to the increase in balloon pressure, an effect that was stimulated in rats subjected to early maternal separation as described previously10. However, oral pre-administration of aminophylline (60鈥塵g鈥塳g鈭?) significantly suppressed the VMR to a level similar to that observed in non-maternally separated rats (control rats) (Fig. 4a). Oral pre-administration of ramosetron produced a similar effect (Fig. 4a). On the other hand, pre-administration of aminophylline did not affect the VMR to CRD in control rats (without maternal separation) even at the higher dose of 180鈥塵g鈥塳g鈭? (Fig. 4b). We also found that administration of theophylline suppressed the VMR to CRD in rats subjected to maternal separation at a dose equivalent to that of aminophylline (with respect to the molecular weight of theophylline) (Fig. 4c). These results suggest that aminophylline and theophylline suppress the maternal separation-induced visceral hypersensitivity to CRD.Figure 4: Effects of aminophylline on maternal separation- and acetic acid administration-induced visceral hypersensitivity to CRD in rats.Rats were subjected to maternal separation (MS) or administration of 0.5% acetic acid (AA) as described in the Materials and Methods. The MS and non-maternally separated (NS) rats were orally administered the indicated dose of aminophylline (Amino) (mg kg鈭?) (a,b), ramosetron (Ram) (mg kg鈭?) (a), theophylline (Theo) (mg kg鈭?) (b) or vehicle (Veh: saline) (a鈥?b>c). Two hours later, the VMR to CRD was monitored by measuring the EMG. The values are the mean鈥壜扁€塻.e.m. * or #P鈥?lt;鈥?.05; ** or ##P鈥?lt;鈥?.01 (*, vs NS; #, vs Veh) (Tukey test).Full size imageWe then evaluated the therapeutic potential of aminophylline in an acetic acid-induced visceral hypersensitivity. In this model, rat pups received intracolonic administration of acetic acid at 10 days of age and visceral hypersensitivity to CRD was assessed at 5鈥? weeks of age. As shown in Fig. 4d, rats subjected to the acetic acid treatment showed visceral hypersensitivity to CRD. However, pre-administration of aminophylline returned the sensitivity to the level observed in control rats.The mechanism underlying aminophylline-dependent suppression of visceral hypersensitivity to CRDAs shown in Fig. 5a, ibudilast did not significantly affect the VMR to CRD in rats subjected to maternal separation, suggesting that the inhibitory effect of aminophylline on visceral hypersensitivity to CRD is not mediated by inhibition of PDEs. Thus, we focused on ARs. Pre-administration of istradefylline or MRS-1754 significantly suppressed the VMR to CRD in rats subjected to maternal separation to an extent similar to that observed with aminophylline (Fig. 5b). In contrast, DPCPX did not suppress the VMR to CRD, and indeed a higher dose of this drug had a stimulatory effect (Fig. 5b). These results suggest that the inhibitory effect of aminophylline on maternal separation-induced visceral hypersensitivity to CRD is mediated by its inhibitory effect on both A2AARs and A2BARs. To confirm this hypothesis, we used another subtype-specific antagonist of A2AARs and A2BARs. As shown in Fig. 5c, both ZM241385 and PSB1115 (a subtype-specific antagonist of A2AARs and A2BARs, respectively) significantly suppressed the VMR to CRD in rats subjected to maternal separation.Figure 5: Effects of AR antagonists and PDE inhibitors on maternal separation-induced visceral hypersensitivity to CRD in rats.Rats subjected to maternal separation (MS) (a鈥?b>c) or non-separation (NS) (a,b) were intraperitoneally administered the indicated dose (mg kg鈭?) of ibudilast (a subtype non-selective PDE inhibitor) (a), DCPCX (a selective A1AR antagonist) (b), istradefylline (Istra) (a selective A2AAR antagonist) (b), MRS-1754 (a selective A2BAR antagonist) (b), ZM241385 (a selective A2AAR antagonist) (c), PSB1115 (a selective A2BAR antagonist) (c) or vehicle (Veh: 1% methylcellulose) (a鈥?b>c). Fifteen minutes later, the VMR to CRD was monitored. The values are the mean鈥壜扁€塻.e.m. * or #P鈥?lt;鈥?.05; ** or ##P鈥?lt;鈥?.01 (*, vs Ctrl; #, vs Veh) (Tukey test). The data for the MS鈥?鈥塚eh in the three panels in (b) and the two panels in (c) are the same.Full size imageTo investigate the involvement of A2AAR and A2BAR activation in the development of visceral hypersensitivity to CRD, we examined the effect of CGS21680 (a subtype-specific A2AAR agonist) and BAY60-6583 (a subtype-specific A2BAR agonist) on VMR to CRD in normal rats. We found that both CGS21680 and BAY60-6583 produced a stimulatory effect on VMR to CRD in normal rats (Fig. 6a). We also assessed the effect of CGS21680 and BAY60-6583 on the rats subjected to maternal separation, and found neither agonist affected the VMR to CRD in maternally separated rats (Fig. 6b). Finally, we examined whether an A2AAR or A2BAR agonist could inhibit the ameliorative effect of aminophylline on maternal separation-induced visceral hypersensitivity to CRD. Both CGS21680 and BAY60-6583 significantly stimulated the VMR to CRD in maternally separated rats pretreated with aminophylline (Fig. 6c).Figure 6: Effects of AR agonists on visceral sensitivity to CRD in control and maternally separated rats.Control rats (a) and maternally separated (MS) (b,c) rats were intraperitoneally administered the indicated dose (mg kg鈭?) of CGS21680 (a selective A2AAR agonist) (a鈥?b>c), BAY60-6583 (a selective A2BAR agonist) (a鈥?b>c), or vehicle (Veh: 1% methylcellulose) (a鈥?b>c). Fifteen minutes later, the VMR to CRD was monitored. A 60鈥塵g/kg of aminophylline (Amino) was orally administered to rats 2鈥塰 before the CRD test (c). The values are the mean鈥壜扁€塻.e.m. * or #P鈥?lt;鈥?.05; ** or ##P鈥?lt;鈥?.01 (*, vs Veh; #, vs MS鈥?鈥堿mino鈥?鈥塚eh) (Tukey test).Full size imageDiscussionAlthough various types of drugs are prescribed for IBS-D patients and several target proteins for IBS-D drugs have been proposed, an appropriate pharmacological therapy has not yet been established. Furthermore, the adverse effects of the current IBS-D drugs restrict the clinical use of these drugs (see introduction). Thus, novel drugs that target novel proteins and enable long-term treatment without serious adverse effects are required. Here we adopted a phenotypic screening approach and a drug re-positioning strategy to search for suitable drug candidates. Specifically, we screened for compounds that could suppress both the VMR to CRD and stress-induced defecation in rats, and identified aminophylline as a promising candidate. Aminophylline or theophylline has been clinically used as a bronchodilator and both its antagonizing activity on ARs and its inhibitory activity on PDEs have been reported23. However, thus far, the potential beneficial effects of these drugs on IBS have not been proven in pre-clinical or clinical studies.Here, the oral administration of aminophylline prevented not only WRS-induced defecation but also novel stress-induced defecation in rats and RS-induced defecation in mice. However, in rats, aminophylline did not affect defecation under normal conditions and the serum level of corticosterone under stress conditions, suggesting that aminophylline specifically prevented stress-induced defecation independent of the function of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. The lack of an effect on normal defecation would appear to be beneficial for its clinical application in IBS patients. The dose-response profiles of aminophylline in terms of its inhibitory effect on fecal pellet output and its bronchodilatory effect were similar in mice. Theophylline also showed an inhibitory effect on WRS-induced fecal pellet output. These results suggest that the inhibitory effect of aminophylline on stress-induced defecation is mediated by a mechanism similar to that for its bronchodilatory effect. In other words, by antagonizing ARs and/or inhibiting PDEs. We showed that pre-administration of a subtype-specific antagonist of A2BARs but not of A1ARs or A2AARs significantly suppressed WRS-induced fecal pellet output in rats. We also demonstrated that a subtype non-specific inhibitor of PDE and a subtype-specific inhibitor of PDE4 but not PDE3 had a similar effect. These results suggest that the inhibitory effect of aminophylline on WRS-induced fecal pellet output is mediated by its inhibitory effect on both PDE4 and A2BARs. However, no direct evidence for this effect was presented in this study. Therefore, confirmation that a selective PDE4 activator or a selective A2BAR agonist can inhibit the ameliorating effect of aminophylline is warranted. Furthermore, these results are consistent with those of previous reports showing that A2BAR-knockout mice have decreased stool frequency32 and that inhibition of PDE4 suppresses stress-induced defecation35. Nevertheless, they do not agree with the finding by Antonioli et al. that A2BAR antagonists enhance colonic contraction in rats30. Thus, our findings are in contrast to those of Antonioli et al. We believe that the results of Antonioli et al. may not necessarily reflect the overall effect on colonic propulsive activity in vivo because their experiments were tested in vitro using a longitudinal smooth muscle strip. On the other hand, Chandrasekharan et al. reported that A2BAR knockout mice and A2BAR antagonist-treated mice showed delayed colonic emptying, decreased stool retention and decreased stool frequency32. The authors also suggested that these phenotypes were mediated by inhibition of colonic circular muscle relaxation through the blockade of A2BARs, which are involved in NO release from enteric neurons. We postulate that such a mechanism may underlie our results.Oral administration of aminophylline or theophylline prevented maternal separation- and acetic acid administration-induced visceral hypersensitivity to CRD but did not affect the visceral sensitivity under normal conditions. The inability of these drugs to affect normal visceral sensitivity may be beneficial for their clinical application in IBS patients. Regarding the mechanism governing the inhibitory effect of aminophylline on visceral hypersensitivity to CRD, we showed that a subtype non-specific inhibitor of PDE did not significantly affect the hypersensitivity response. In contrast, pre-administration of subtype-specific antagonists of A2AARs and A2BARs but not A1ARs significantly suppressed the VMR to CRD in rats subjected to maternal separation. These results suggest that the inhibitory effect of aminophylline on maternal separation-induced visceral hypersensitivity to CRD is mediated by its inhibitory effect on both A2AARs and A2BARs. We confirmed this hypothesis using additional subtype-specific A2AAR and A2BAR antagonists (ZM241385 and PSB1115, respectively) and subtype-specific A2AAR and A2BAR agonists (CGS21680 and BAY60-6583, respectively) in the presence of aminophylline. Given that it is known that PSB1115 does not cross the blood-brain barrier38, this result suggests that A2BARs expressed on peripheral tissues (such as the large intestine) rather than those expressed in the central nervous system mediate the inhibitory effect of aminophylline on visceral hypersensitivity. Furthermore, we found that A2AAR and A2BAR subtype-specific agonists stimulated visceral sensitivity to CRD in normal rats but not in maternally separated rats. We speculate that A2AR and A2BR receptor sensitivity is decreased in maternally separated rats because these receptors are already bound by adenosine. Thus, we also infer that the occurrence (or enhancement) of a tonic adenosine release during stress rather than an increased expression of A2AAR and A2BAR is involved in the development of visceral hypersensitivity to CRD in stressed rats. As described in the introduction, previous studies have shown that A2AAR and A2BAR antagonists produce an analgesic effect in an animal model of somatic pain31. However, to the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to demonstrate the inhibitory effect of A2AAR and A2BAR antagonists on visceral pain and hypersensitivity. On the other hand, we found that administration of a higher dose of an A1AR antagonist stimulated the VMR to CRD, which was consistent with the finding of a previous study showing that the activation of A1ARs produced an analgesic effect34.We propose that aminophylline and theophylline are candidate drugs for IBS-D due to their ameliorating effects on both stress-induced defecation and visceral hypersensitivity. Their ability to suppress maternal separation-induced visceral hypersensitivity to CRD is particularly important, given that most current IBS-D drugs, except for 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, have not been reported to affect visceral hypersensitivity in this model. Furthermore, since the inhibitory effect of aminophylline on WRS-induced defecation appears to be mediated by a mechanism similar to that which underlies its bronchodilatory effect, aminophylline may show therapeutic efficacy at a dose used clinically and of which the safety has already been confirmed in humans.Our results have also revealed a novel target protein class for IBS-D drugs: the A2BARs. Specific antagonists for these receptors may therefore be beneficial for the treatment of IBS-D patients, although it is possible that aminophylline may still prove superior to such specific antagonists. We therefore propose that a pilot clinical study in which the efficacy of aminophylline in IBS-D patients is tested should be performed, given that this is already possible without the need of pre-clinical and phase 1 clinical studies.MethodsChemicals and animalsPSB1115 was purchased from Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc (Santa Cruz, CA). Methylcellulose, ibudilast and rolipram were obtained from Wako Pure Chemical Industries (Osaka, Japan). Medetomidine chloride (Domitor庐) and butorphanol tartrate (Vetorphale庐) were obtained from Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan) and midazolam was purchased from SANDOZ (Tokyo, Japan). Istradefylline and theophylline were purchased from Sigma (St. Louis, MO). Cilostazol and aminophylline were obtained from LKT laboratories, Inc. (St Paul, MN). MRS-1754 and BAY60-6583 were from Tocris Bioscience (Bristol, UK) and 1,3-dipropyl-8-cyclopentylxanthine (DCPCX), ZM241385 and CGS21680 were from Abcam (Cambridge, UK). ICR mice (5- or 6-week-old males, 28鈥?3鈥塯), primiparous late pregnant Wistar female rats and normal male Wistar rats (4- or 5-week-old, 150鈥?50鈥塯) were obtained from Charles River Laboratories Japan (Yokohama, Japan). The animals were housed under conditions of controlled temperature (22鈥?4鈥壜癈) and illumination (12-h light cycle) conditions for 1 or 2 weeks before experiments. The experiments and procedures described here were performed in accordance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals as adopted and promulgated by the National Institutes of Health, and were approved by the Animal Care Committees of Keio University and St. Marianna University.Measurement of VMR to CRDThe VMR to CRD was monitored as described39, with some modifications. Briefly, rats were deeply anesthetized with a mixture of medetomidine chloride (0.5鈥塵g鈥塳g鈭?), midazolam (2.5鈥塵g鈥塳g鈭?), and butorphanol tartrate (2.5鈥塵g鈥塳g鈭?), and electromyography electrodes (Star Medical, Tokyo, Japan) were sutured into the external oblique muscle of the abdomen for electromyogram (EMG) recording. Electrode leads were tunneled subcutaneously and were exteriorized at the nape of the neck for future access. After the surgery, rats were housed individually and allowed to recuperate for 6 days before being used for measurement of the VMR. The rats were restrained in a plastic conical-shape tube (diameter, 6鈥塩m; height, 15鈥塩m), 15鈥塵in before the EMG recording. A polyethylene bag (length, 2鈥塩m) was inserted in the distal colon, positioned 1鈥塩m proximal to the rectum and connected to a balloon catheter. The pressure and volume of the balloon were controlled and monitored by a pressure controller-timing device (Distender Series II; G J Electronics, Toronto, Canada), connected to the balloon. The rats were subjected to repeated CRD (12 times at 80鈥塵m Hg; duration, 30鈥塻; interstimulus interval, 300鈥塻) for drug screening or to phasic CRD (10, 20, 40 60 and 80鈥塵m Hg; duration, 20鈥塻; interstimulus interval, 150鈥塻) for the estimation of drug activity. Aminophylline or theophylline in saline or ramosetron in 1% methylcellulose were administered orally 2鈥塰 before CRD. The other drugs (AR antagonists, AR agonists and PDE inhibitors) were dissolved in 1% methylcellulose and were intraperitoneally administered 15鈥塵in before CRD. EMG data were collected and analyzed using the 8 STAR software package (version 6.0鈥?9.2 for Windows; Star Medical, Tokyo, Japan). VMR evoked by contraction of the external oblique muscle was quantified by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) of the voltage alteration graph. The data were expressed as the result of the subtraction of the baseline VMR from the VMR during CRD (EMG amplitude). The baseline was consisted of the data collected 20鈥塻 before each CRD.Maternal separation- and acetic acid-induced colonic hypersensitivity to CRDNeonatal maternal separation was performed as described previously10 with some modifications. Primiparous late pregnant Wistar female rats were individually housed for about a week prior to giving birth (10鈥?5 pups/rat). The pups were separated from their dams for 3鈥塰 every day for 10 days (from postnatal day 2 to 12). Separations were conducted between 9 AM and 12 AM. The pups were placed in plastic cages that contained a heater pad (30鈥壜癈鈥?3鈥壜癈), and were placed in a room separated from the dams. Non-maternally separated group (control pups) was left undisturbed with their dams. From postnatal day 12, both groups of rats were left undisturbed except for routine cage cleaning every two days. At 5鈥? weeks of age, the VMR to CRD was examined in both groups of rats.Acetic acid-induced colonic hypersensitivity was performed as described previously40 with some modifications. At 10 days of age, rat pups were subjected to intracolonic injection of 0.2鈥塵l of 0.5% acetic acid in saline in a position 2鈥塩m from the anus; control rats received an equal volume of saline. At 5鈥? weeks of age, the VMR to CRD in both groups of rats was measured.Stress-induced fecal pellet outputWRS-, RS-, and novel stress-induced fecal pellet output was monitored as described previously36,39, with some modifications.To monitor the WRS-induced fecal pellet output in rats, the rats received an oral dose of aminophylline or theophylline in saline (2鈥塵l鈥塳g鈭?) or ramosetron in 1% methylcellulose (2鈥塵l鈥塳g鈭?) 2鈥塰 before WRS. The other drugs (AR antagonists or PDE inhibitors) were dissolved in 1% methylcellulose and were injected intraperitoneally 15鈥塵in before WRS. Rats were subjected to WRS for 1鈥塰 and the number or wet weight of fecal pellets excreted during this period was determined. The wet weight of fecal pellets excreted during 24鈥塰ours was measured to evaluate the influence of aminophylline on defecation in non-stressed rats. WRS was performed as described previously36. Briefly, the rats were lightly anesthetized with isoflurane and their foreshoulders, upper forelimbs and thoracic trunk were wrapped in paper tape to restrict but not prevent movement. The animals recovered from isoflurane within 2鈥?鈥塵in and mobile immediately thereafter. The control rats were anesthetized with isoflurane but were not wrapped.To monitor RS-induced fecal pellet output in mice, the mice were placed individually into a 50鈥塵l Falcon tube (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ) for 1鈥塰. These tubes were small enough to restrain each mouse but were large enough to allow breathing. The control mice were left to move freely in their cage. Aminophylline in saline (10鈥塵l鈥塳g鈭?) was orally administered 2鈥塰 before RS. The number of fecal pellets excreted during the RS period (1鈥塰) was counted.Control (non-maternally separated) and maternally separated rats (see above) were tested for responsiveness to a novel stress stimulus. This was induced by transferring the rats from their home cage with a white paper towel to a new cage with a wired mesh, as described previously10. Aminophylline was orally administered 2鈥塰 prior to exposure to a novel stress stimulus. The rats were placed in the new cage for 1鈥塰, and the number of fecal pellets excreted during this period was counted.Measurement of lung airway resistanceMeasurement of lung airway resistance was performed with a computer-controlled small animal ventilator (FlexiVent, SCIREQ, Montreal, Canada) as described previously37. The mice were anesthetized with chloral hydrate (500鈥塵g鈥塳g鈭?), a tracheotomy was performed, and an 8-mm section of metallic tube was inserted into the trachea. Mice were mechanically ventilated at a rate of 150 breaths per min, using a tidal volume of 8.7鈥塵l鈥塳g鈭? and a positive end-expiratory pressure of 2鈥?鈥塩m H2O. For measurement of the methacholine-induced increase in airway resistance, mice were exposed to nebulized methacholine (1鈥塵g鈥塵l鈭?) five times for 20鈥塻, with a 40鈥塻 interval, and airway resistance was measured after each methacholine challenge by the snap shot technique. Aminophylline was orally administered to mice 1鈥塰 before the test. All data were analyzed using the FlexiVent software (FlexiVent, SCIREQ, Montreal, Canada).Measurement of the plasma corticosterone levelAfter completion of the WRS experiment, the rats were euthanized and blood was collected to measure the plasma corticosterone level, using an ELISA kit (Cayman Chemical, Ann Arbor, MI), according to the manufacturer鈥檚 instructions.Statistical analysisAll values are expressed as the mean鈥壜扁€塻.e.m. For the defecation experiments, one or two-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey test for unpaired results was used to evaluate differences between more than two groups or between two groups. For the bronchodilation and visceral hypersensitivity to CRD study, two-way ANOVA with repeated measures followed by the Tukey test was used. Differences were considered significant at P鈥?lt;鈥?.05.Additional InformationHow to cite this article: Asano, T. et al. Aminophylline suppresses stress-induced visceral hypersensitivity and defecation in irritable bowel syndrome. Sci. Rep. 7, 40214; doi: 10.1038/srep40214 (2017).Publisher\'s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References1Chang, L., Lembo, A. Sultan, S. American Gastroenterological Association Institute Technical Review on the pharmacological management of irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 147, 1149鈥?172 e1142 (2014).Article聽Google Scholar聽 2Canavan, C., West, J. Card, T. Review article: the economic impact of the irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 40, 1023鈥?034 (2014).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 3Longstreth, G. F. et al. Functional bowel disorders. Gastroenterology 130, 1480鈥?491 (2006).Article聽Google Scholar聽 4Matricon, J. et al. Review article: Associations between immune activation, intestinal permeability and the irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 36, 1009鈥?031 (2012).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 5Simren, M. et al. Intestinal microbiota in functional bowel disorders: a Rome foundation report. Gut 62, 159鈥?76 (2013).Article聽Google Scholar聽 6Spiller, R. Garsed, K. Postinfectious irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 136, 1979鈥?988 (2009).Article聽Google Scholar聽 7Dinan, T. G. et al. Hypothalamic-pituitary-gut axis dysregulation in irritable bowel syndrome: plasma cytokines as a potential biomarker? Gastroenterology 130, 304鈥?11 (2006).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 8Mayer, E. A. Collins, S. M. Evolving pathophysiologic models of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Gastroenterology 122, 2032鈥?048 (2002).Article聽Google Scholar聽 9Videlock, E. J. et al. Childhood trauma is associated with hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis responsiveness in irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 137, 1954鈥?962 (2009).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 10O鈥橫ahony, S. M. et al. Early life stress alters behavior, immunity, and microbiota in rats: implications for irritable bowel syndrome and psychiatric illnesses. Biol Psychiatry 65, 263鈥?67 (2009).Article聽Google Scholar聽 11Mertz, H. R. Irritable bowel syndrome. N Engl J Med 349, 2136鈥?146 (2003).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 12Hammerle, C. W. Surawicz, C. M. Updates on treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. World J Gastroenterol 14, 2639鈥?649 (2008).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 13Chey, W. D. et al. Linaclotide for Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Constipation: A 26-Week, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety. Am J Gastroenterol (2012).14Menees, S. B., Maneerattannaporn, M., Kim, H. M. Chey, W. D. The efficacy and safety of rifaximin for the irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 107, 28鈥?5 quiz 36 (2012).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 15Traynor, K. Eluxadoline approved for irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea. Am J Health Syst Pharm 72, 1078 (2015).PubMed聽Google Scholar聽 16Camilleri, M. Pharmacology of the new treatments for lower gastrointestinal motility disorders and irritable bowel syndrome. Clin Pharmacol Ther 91, 44鈥?9 (2012).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 17Mayer, E. A. Bradesi, S. Alosetron and irritable bowel syndrome. Expert Opin Pharmacother 4, 2089鈥?098 (2003).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 18Shah, E. Pimentel, M. Evaluating the functional net value of pharmacologic agents in treating irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 39, 973鈥?83 (2014).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 19Mizushima, T. Drug discovery and development focusing on existing medicines: drug re-profiling strategy. J Biochem 149, 499鈥?05 (2011).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 20Segal, M. S., Levinson, L. et al. Evaluation of therapeutic substances employed for the relief of bronchospasm; aminophylline. J Clin Invest 28, 1190鈥?195 (1949).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 21Hendeles, L. Weinberger, M. Theophylline. A 鈥渟tate of the art鈥?review. Pharmacotherapy 3, 2鈥?4 (1983).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 22Vassallo, R. Lipsky, J. J. Theophylline: recent advances in the understanding of its mode of action and uses in clinical practice. Mayo Clin Proc 73, 346鈥?54 (1998).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 23Ukena, D., Schudt, C. Sybrecht, G. W. Adenosine receptor-blocking xanthines as inhibitors of phosphodiesterase isozymes. Biochem Pharmacol 45, 847鈥?51 (1993).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 24Choi, O. H., Shamim, M. T., Padgett, W. L. Daly, J. W. Caffeine and theophylline analogues: correlation of behavioral effects with activity as adenosine receptor antagonists and as phosphodiesterase inhibitors. Life Sci 43, 387鈥?98 (1988).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 25Fredholm, B. B., Irenius, E., Kull, B. Schulte, G. Comparison of the potency of adenosine as an agonist at human adenosine receptors expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells. Biochem Pharmacol 61, 443鈥?48 (2001).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 26Jacobson, K. A. Gao, Z. G. Adenosine receptors as therapeutic targets. Nat Rev Drug Discov 5, 247鈥?64 (2006).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 27Christofi, F. L. Purinergic receptors and gastrointestinal secretomotor function. Purinergic Signal 4, 213鈥?36 (2008).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 28Feoktistov, I. Biaggioni, I. Adenosine A2B receptors. Pharmacol Rev 49, 381鈥?02 (1997).CAS聽 PubMed聽Google Scholar聽 29Maurice, D. H. et al. Advances in targeting cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterases. Nat Rev Drug Discov 13, 290鈥?14 (2014).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 30Antonioli, L. et al. Role of the A(2B) receptor-adenosine deaminase complex in colonic dysmotility associated with bowel inflammation in rats. Br J Pharmacol 171, 1314鈥?329 (2014).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 31Abo-Salem, O. M. et al. Antinociceptive effects of novel A2B adenosine receptor antagonists. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 308, 358鈥?66 (2004).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 32Chandrasekharan, B. P. et al. Adenosine 2B receptors (A(2B)AR) on enteric neurons regulate murine distal colonic motility. FASEB J 23, 2727鈥?734 (2009).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 33Hussey, M. J., Clarke, G. D., Ledent, C., Hourani, S. M. Kitchen, I. Reduced response to the formalin test and lowered spinal NMDA glutamate receptor binding in adenosine A2A receptor knockout mice. Pain 129, 287鈥?94 (2007).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 34Zhang, X. J. et al. Analgesic effect of paeoniflorin in rats with neonatal maternal separation-induced visceral hyperalgesia is mediated through adenosine A(1) receptor by inhibiting the extracellular signal-regulated protein kinase (ERK) pathway. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 94, 88鈥?7 (2009).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 35Barone, F. C. et al. Inhibition of phosphodiesterase type 4 decreases stress-induced defecation in rats and mice. Pharmacology 81, 11鈥?7 (2008).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 36Yamamoto, O. et al. Effect of YNS-15P, a new alpha-2 adrenoceptor antagonist, on stress-stimulated colonic propulsion in rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 287, 691鈥?96 (1998).CAS聽 PubMed聽Google Scholar聽 37Tanaka, K. et al. Mepenzolate bromide displays beneficial effects in a mouse model of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nat Commun 4, 2686 (2013).Article聽Google Scholar聽 38Baumgold, J., Nikodijevic, O. Jacobson, K. A. Penetration of adenosine antagonists into mouse brain as determined by ex vivo binding. Biochem Pharmacol 43, 889鈥?94 (1992).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 39Asano, T. et al. Effects of beta-(1,3-1,6)-D-glucan on irritable bowel syndrome-related colonic hypersensitivity. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 420, 444鈥?49 (2012).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 40Qian, A. H. et al. Voltage-gated potassium channels in IB4-positive colonic sensory neurons mediate visceral hypersensitivity in the rat. Am J Gastroenterol 104, 2014鈥?027 (2009).CAS聽 Article聽Google Scholar聽 Download referencesAcknowledgementsThe authors gratefully acknowledge Ayumi Kanada for technical assistance with the animal experiments. This work was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare of Japan, and Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.Author informationAffiliationsInstitute of Medical Science, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1, Sugao, Miyamae-ku, 216-8512, Kawasaki, JapanTeita Asano聽 聽Mitsuko TakenagaLaboratory of Bio-Analytical Chemistry, Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Musashino University, 1-1-2伪hinmachi, Nishitokyo-shi, 202-8585, JapanKen-ichiro TanakaFaculty of Pharmacy, Keio University, 1-5-30, Shibakoen, Tokyo, 105-8512, Minato-ku, JapanArisa Tada,聽Hikaru Shimamura,聽Rikako Tanaka聽 聽Hiroki MaruokaLTT Bio-Pharma Co., Ltd, Shiodome Building 3F, 1-2-20 Kaigan, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-0022, JapanTohru MizushimaAuthorsTeita AsanoView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in PubMed聽Google ScholarKen-ichiro TanakaView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in PubMed聽Google ScholarArisa TadaView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in PubMed聽Google ScholarHikaru ShimamuraView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in PubMed聽Google ScholarRikako TanakaView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in PubMed聽Google ScholarHiroki MaruokaView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in PubMed聽Google ScholarMitsuko TakenagaView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in PubMed聽Google ScholarTohru MizushimaView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in PubMed聽Google ScholarContributionsConception and design: T.A., K.T. and T.M.; analysis and interpretation: T.A., K.T., A.T., R.T., H.S., H.M. and M.T.; drafting of the manuscript for important intellec.tual content: T.A. and T.M.Corresponding authorCorrespondence to Teita Asano.Ethics declarations Competing interests Tohru Mizushima is the chairman and director of LTT Bio-Pharma Co., Ltd, which may develop aminophylline for IBS-D. Teita Asano and Mitsuko Takenaga belong to an endowed research division of LTT Bio-Pharma Co., Ltd. Rights and permissions This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article鈥檚 Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Reprints and PermissionsAbout this articleCite this articleAsano, T., Tanaka, Ki., Tada, A. et al. Aminophylline suppresses stress-induced visceral hypersensitivity and defecation in irritable bowel syndrome. Sci Rep 7, 40214 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40214Download citationReceived: 05 July 2016Accepted: 05 December 2016Published: 05 January 2017DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40214 Teita Asano, Yuto Noda, Ken-Ichiro Tanaka, Naoki Yamakawa, Mitsuhito Wada, Tadaaki Mashimo, Yoshifumi Fukunishi, Tohru Mizushima Mitsuko Takenaga Scientific Reports (2020) CommentsBy submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter 鈥?what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.